USPSA "Provisional" class": Pistol Caliber Carbine?

There has been some talk about adding a new (provisional) USPSA competition division:

Pistol Caliber Carbine

well ... actually, there has been very little talk about this at all!

Pistol Caliber Carbine - USPSA

WHY should we do this?

I don't know why we should add another Division ... I'm under the impression that this is a "provisional" Division,  but nobody is talking about it.  Well .. except me, and I do think we should talk about it.

Because I think it sounds like fun.

Let's face it, when Col. Jeff Cooper gave up his presidency of USPSA  in 1997 because he considered it to be "no longer even vaguely practical", the doors swung open and we can play any games we want to.

(If we really want to.)


And I'm only talking about it now because I spent thousands of dollars (that's a lie .. it was more like a dollar two-ninety-eight) to buy a mech tech caliber conversion unit from The Hobo Brasser where my 1911 would slide into a carbine barreled action with a rifle stock and it would turn into a carbine.

Which I discovered was REALLY FUN to shoot!
(okay, it currently has an electronic dot-sight, which complicates the equation, but ... we'll talk about that, too.)

My 1911 works quite well in this framework, although I've discovered that I need to load my .45acp ammunition to a bit higher power-factor to make the much heavier action work reliably.  Okay, that's talking point #1.

What are the other talking points?

Wow!  Assuming that the Division might be approved by USPSA, there are some basic questions that need to be discussed.  For example:

1. What is the starting position?
2. Can the Carbine legitimately compete against other divisions for "Over All" scores?
3. Sights?
4. Magazine Capacity?
5. Can it fold into "Open Division"?
6. 
   
   

Looking at each question:

1. Starting Position could obviously NOT be "pistol holstered".  It would have to be the "Low Ready" position (default for 3-gun?) or something that looks like "laying flat on the table ... " etc.

2. Over all scores (if the division were truly accepted only as a 'provisional' division) might not be affected by inclusion of Pistol Caliber Carbine.   Or should it?

3. Sights?  Most people (all three of them?) would probably choose to use an optical sight rather than an iron sight, if only because since this division would obviously be a "Red-headed Stepchild" Division, you might as well spend an extra couple hundred bucks and get a Red-Dot Sight to go with your "Red-headed Stepchild"   BUT perhaps some people would prefer to shoot with iron sights?  I don't know why, so I'm going to assume that SIGHTS would not be the basis for initiating a subdivision.  Use whatever you have, no limit on sight configurations.

4. Magazine Capacity:  One assumes that (since current production of this Bastard Division only accommodates 1911 single-stack and Glock pistols .. which might change) this would require a division sub-genre with "limited" (10-round or less, as in Single-Stack frames) or "open" as when a Glock 19, for example, offers a 19-round magazine capacity).  So we're talking about 2 sub divisions based only on magazine capacity.  But this is not, really, necessary. Use whatever you have, no limit on magazine capacity.

5.  Fold into "Open Division"?  Why would we want to do that?  We've  (0kay .. *I* have) already arbitrarily proclaimed that magazine capacity and sights don't necessarily need to be included into the Division specification.  If you look at the mech-tech webpage, you'll see that there are more options than were available when I bought my version a decade ago.  Which, in my mind, makes the question even more appealing!

I LIKE Gamers!

 A semi pro competitor by name of Rick Birdsall recently shot this 3 Gun stage where he slid underneath the stage wall and completed the course of fire. Pretty neat and a great use of time. Before people start ringing bells about safety, he cleared his actions with the RO before the match and if you look carefully, he completes his action with a magazine inserted, but no round in the chamber, and loads it on the other side of the wall. There was some criticism voiced on his page but overall it was conducted in a safe manner.

This has been written up on a couple of other gun blogs.    For those of you who have already seen the video I won't bother including it (go to the FIREARM blog link for the video ... they need the traffic).
  But as an IPSC competitor for thirty years, I have something to say.

This is about competition.  USPSA competition.

And I like that this guy chose to shoot the stage his own way; that's what IPSC is all about.
Whether he gained any actual competitive advantage from his approach is immaterial.  He shot the stage the way his way, and this bullshit about whether the score should be protested ... it's just bullshit.  Screw 'em if they can't take a joke; it's legal!

USPSA and New Gun Restrictions

In my January 19, 2013 post "Stop the Rage .... Mine" (and several earlier posts!) , I summarized my... disappointed .. in the recurring political movement to restrict private firearms ownership.

Actually, what I did was to say I was through talking about it.

[sigh]

Wrong.  I'm not through talking about it.

One of the comments was ... perhaps offered facetiously, but still the question offered was entirely germane to this blog: 

Instead of delving into the progressive mindset, we should be asking the important questions. How will restrictions on certain firearms, and magazine capacity affect USPSA/IPSC rules and stage development? The feds are talking 10 round magazines, but NY has already mandated 7 round capacity mags and other states are sure to follow. How will USPSA respond to these potential draconian restrictions and/or bans in magazine capacity and firearms? What affect will they have on 3gun?

Oh, yeah,  we've been there before.

Some folks suggest that since the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban didn't really have much effect on .. gun stuff ... maybe this one will be equally as ineffective (if still equally inconvenient).

Well .. maybe so, maybe not.

I know that I found ways during that time period to get around the 'banned' items.  For example, I found a way to move from Limited to OPEN Division, including the purchasing of "normal capacity" magazines of 18 rounds (limited) and 25 rounds (open).  The magazines were all marked something like "only military or Law Enforcement" .. but I still got them.  The magazines cost three times as much as their replacement tubes did after the 1994 law sunset in 2004, of course.   Which is, of course, economically selective; "poor people" couldn't afford them, just us "rich folks".  (Or those of us who really like Tuna Fish and Macaroni for dinner six nights a week.)

But that was then; this is now.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'll ignore the very STRONG possibility that Race Guns (they have "compensators", you know) may be outlawed.  Also, "Firearms which may accept magazines of greater than 'x-rounds' capacity" will not be totally banned ... I'm not sure if that can even pass a Democratic congress; any magazine-fed firearm doesn't have a way to restrict the LENGTH of the magazine.

So, delving into excruciating detail, here's what I see as possible ways that Congress and Our Beloved Leader may screw us most painfully:

10-round Magazines:
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that ten-round magazines are the legally maximum capacity allowed under federal law.

Hmm .. the difference between LIMITED and LIMITED-10 Divisions have been been eliminated.

The Open Division can't use 25-round magazines; but they still have compensators and electronic dot-sights, so there is a clear advantage .. albeit LESS of an advantage .. over Limited/Limited-10 Divisions.  (Speaking as a 'vision-challenged' Super Senior: it's still an advantage when you can see the sights.)

I might point out, however, that current USPSA rules limit the number of shots which MUST be fired from a single location, port or position.  Any time you move, you have a small window of opportunity when you may reload.  Speaking for myself, I moved from "C-class" to "B-class" using a single-stack 1911 in 1998 when Limited-10 Division was still a "Talking Point" in USPSA.  If you gotta move, you gotta reload.  BFD.

Production and L-10 Divisions were predicated on limited magazine capacity.  Even Limited has a 144-mm magazine length restriction, which means you can probably stuff 18-20 9mm rounds in there, so ... who cares?

Single-Stack has limited capacity, under 10 rounds.
.
Revolver .. huh.  Who cares; they're only shooting 6-shot loads anyway.  And Jerry Miculek is possibly the only man in the world who doesn't care if he can get a 20-round Revolver or not.


 So, how about the possibility of a 7-round magazine capacity restriction?

Okay, so now we're talking about being really shitty for no discernible reason.

In the first place, the USPSA rule about limiting the number of rounds which must be fired from a single location/position/etc. have been completely undermined.  A 10-round magazine can handle a 9-round maximum; a 7-round magazine can not.

Since most stages include IPSC targets (cardboard, requiring 2 rounds to 'neutralize'), you could only have three targets in most array .. rather than the four (presuming a 9-round max per location) currently presented.  So ... many, even most, of the Classifiers would be either revamped or discarded.

That pretty much hoses the entire Classifier System which USPSA currently uses to decide who is Top Dog in any given Division/Class.


 On the other hand, when I started competing in USPSA/IPSC, the standard assumed that a Revolver was the 'standard/minimal firearm', so all stages were designed to be "six-round friendly".  So .. target arrays included 3 IPSC targets instead of 4, and .. have you noticed that plate-racks still have six plates?  Baby, we haven't got THAT far away from our technological roots.

We're just going back from 10-round-friendly target arrays to 6-round friendly target arrays.

The difference is, if the Federales have their way, we're just going back a decade (or two) to minimum rounds per shooting position, from 9 to 6.  (Citation needed here).

In other words, the current 9-round maximum rule presupposes a 10-round magazine capacity.  A 6-round maximum rule presupposes a 7-round magazine capacity.

It sucks to be a Limited or an Open Division Competitor, in that case.

Look for Open Division to remain strong (but magazines will be a lot cheaper).  The difference between Limited and L-10 will disappear.  Assume that L-10 will not be very popular .. there's no advantage to being able to reload quickly.   In fact, L-10 (or Limited .. whichever survives) and Singlestack will be much more competitive.

Production?  The discrimination between Production and Singlestack will also blur.  Who knows which will predominate.  Note that 1911-style handguns are specifically forbidden in Production, and the Single-Stack Division will disallow the double-stack magazines which are typical in Production Division.

My guess is that Production and Single-Stack will merge in Limited Division ... which was once "STOCK DIVISION" .. and which may be the best choice for the entire definition of "no compensators, no electronic sights".   The only discernible difference between Production and Single-Stack/Limited is that Production now specifically excludes 1911 frames (Prod vs SS) and Single-Stack precludes double-stack magazines (which Limited does not).

TO beat this dead horse a little further:  Limited will accept both Single-Stack and Production firearms, but the placement of holsters and magazine carriers is less restrictive.  Would we really need to cause the differences between the three divisions so picky as to center on holster placement?  (Well, okay .. Limited allows more modifications than does Production .....)

SUMMARY:


REVOLVER DIVISION: no changes
OPEN DIVISION:  Okay, no Big-Sticks, but still a viable Division.  Think of it as "Limited:, But Still Cooler!  And better for weak-eyed old guys.
LIMITED DIVISION: probably no change
LIMITED-10 DIVISION: probably not viable; no real difference between L10 and Limited
PRODUCTION DIVISION:  Probably the same as Limited except for equipment placement and maximum number of rounds allowed ... which wouldn't matter, legally.  That, and 1911's are specifically disallowed.
SINGLE-STACK DIVISION: Probably the same as Production, except that 1911s are specifically allowed and double-stack magazines still are NOT .. not that it matters.

IF I WERE USPSA PRESIDENT, HERE'S WHAT I WOULD CHANGE:

• I would combine Production and Single-Stack, except that maybe the modifications .. I don't know, it's still debatable
• Open and Limited differences remain based on electronic sights and compensators
• Revolvers .. who cares?  God knows THEY don't care!
• Limited and Limited-10 ... Limited-10 is definitively deleted.

________________________________________________________________________

This entire exposition is extemporaneous and not well organized.  It's an off-the-cuff attempt to respond to what turns out to be a very good question .. assuming that Obama's Gun-Killer Legislation ever becomes law.  (That is NOT beyond the realm of possibility in the current Politicized climate.)

You can be sure that these issues are being discussed around the water-cooler at Sedro Woolley, and I think it would be a service to all USPSA members if their thoughts could be shared with the rest of us .. RSN.

Jerry The Geek

Teach you how to shoot? Sure thing!

When I started teaching "Introduction to USPSA" a few years ago,  the first thing I noticed was:

Whoa!  There's a WHOLE lot of people in this class!  (Actually, there were fifteen of them, and one of me.)

The second thing I noticed was:

Whoa!  This guy doesn't know how to hold a gun; and this guy has a pistol he's never used before --- and he isn't even aware that his 1911 has a safety!

So I made a deal with the Range Master: he would accept applications (usually phone calls the night before the class) and 'vet' them to insure that they had at least the equivalent of Basic Handgun Training.  If they didn't qualify, he would quietly recommend that they took the "Basic Handgun Training" class offered by the club before they tried to learn how to shoot in Practical Shooting Competition.

That worked for about a year.

Today, prospective new students contact me directly, and I have to do whatever "vetting" can be done.  And yes, I still get students who decide at the last minute that they want to take the class.

Being the kindly ol' Grandfather-type of gentleman that I am,  I accept them into my class 'anyway'.  I do give them some basic information which I call "Boilerplate" (see below) and warn them about a few basic safety considerations.  (I may also recommend them, if they have NO experience with handguns, to first take the Basic Handgun Class --- which is scheduled for the weekend FOLLOWING the USPSA class.)

Here's the deal:

1. We want to encourage all safe, experienced shooters to join us while we play our silly raindeer games;
2. We want everyone to be safe
3. Not everyone is safe
4. Not everyone is experienced; we can give them the minimum of experience to compete in a match
5. This class not only teaches people how to compete ... it weeds out people who cannot meet the minimal safety requirements

 I have had people point pistols at me.  They never showed up for their first match.

A few people demonstrated the will to succeed, but not the ability.  I have offered them 'extra training' on my own time.  Those who accepted the offer have all managed to get through their first match safely ... but have not always come back for subsequent matches.   Some have, and they have performed adequately.

A few people have been so entirely unable to handle the stress of training, I have 'blackballed' them from competing at ARPC matches, and I've made their names available to the club.  None of these people have ever appeared at a match.  They realize from their training experience ... or I have told them directly .. that  ". .this is not your sport").

I am not above using pressure to encourage students to learn safe gun-handling skills.  When I see a student who has learned bad habits,  I will invariably point it out to them when they have "done wrong".  If it is a deeply-ingrained habit, , when they still revert to their bad habits by the end of the class ... as soon as they break the safety rule they invariably hang their head and say "I know, I did it again".  They either never go to a match, or when they do they are SO focused on safety that they put "It" on the front of their minds and complete their match safely.

They do not, however, typically return for more matches.  They have proved to themselves that they can do this, and that seems to be enough for them.

"What Does It Mean, Gene?"

I've talked to other instructors.   They have all said,  without much coaxing, that some people are just temperamentally unable to handle their guns safely in a high-pressure competitive environment.

Or more frequently; they CAN ... but it's just not as much fun as they had expected.

I don't consider that a 'negative' thing.  I can't drive a car competitively, so I don't do that.  I can't work up the nerve to try sky-diving.  I don't do that either.  Many of the people who show up at the classes are highly trained professionals, with skills/education/training/experience in arcane activities which I could NEVER be trained to perform in capably.  And even if I could 'do it' ... it wouldn't be fun.  Saints Preserve me from trying to be a CPA, but my Darling Daughter loves "working with numbers";  for me, it doesn't sound like fun.

So, yes, I will accept "almost anyone" into my class.  If I have to teach them the basic gunhandling skills, though, it takes time which could better be spent teaching experienced shooters how to turn their experience and abilities into a competitive 'edge'.

I mentioned the shooter who didn't realize his gun had a safety?  That's not a typical experience.  A lot of people, though, don't have all the equipment they need to compete.

That's why I made the plea a few months ago for folks to donate equipment to the program.  I want to report that this has turned out to be an unqualified success!  At almost every class, there's a student who doesn't actually have the equipment he or she needs.  Usually it's a magazine carrier.  Sometimes, they need a decent holster.  Occasionally, they need an extra magazine.  So far, we have usually been able to bring out The Big Pink Box O Gear and find something which gets them through the class, even through the first match.    If they need their own gear still, at least they have the first match to help them understand whether this is an activity which interests them.  Then they can buy their own gear (and now they have a good idea what they need).

And if they find it's not all that fun?  They've saved some money learning that lesson.

Usually, they show up at their SECOND match full of piss and vinegar, and proudly sporting their own new gear!

There was one bad event last summer, though, when a guy with a 1911 .45 didn't have what he needed for his First Match, and I couldn't find what he needed in The Big Pink Box O Gear.  In frustration, I dragged out my own gear and loaned him my holster, three magazine carriers, and three Chip McCormick Single Stack magazines ... just to get through his first match.

I never saw him again.

No, he didn't show up at his First Match.
No, I didn't write down his name.
No, I never got my own personal gear back.

But now I know to register the names of EVERY person who borrows gear, and what they took.

The thing about instructing people is ... the students are not the only ones who learn from the experience.
_____________________________________________________________________________


THE  BOILERPLATE

You're welcome to the ARPC"Introduction to USPSA" class  on mm/dd/yy.  You're now enrolled.

So there isn't any confusion, the class is always presented on the first Saturday of each month.  In , that would be the (nth) day in [month, year] .   

The class is in three parts:

Part one is a one-hour classroom discussion, on First Saturday.

 Part Two.  That is immediately followed by a "Live Fire Exercise", where you actually get to shoot your gun for two hours in a graduated series of simulated match stages.
Part Three takes place the following weekend (which might take place at a later date, if your schedule does not permit you to attend the match on that date) during which you must complete the match "safely"  ... that is to say, without being Disqualified by virtue of having failed to observe all of the safety rules.

After having complete these three stages, you will be awarded a Certification Card which warrants you as qualified to shoot as a USPSA/IPSC competitor at any range in the Columbia Cascade section.    (That's a bit complicated; if you're not a member of a club, you may have to become a member before you can shoot "in practice session" ;  but you CAN shoot at any match in the section regardless of membership status.)

Here is a link to the Columbia Cascade Section, of which the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club is a member:
http://www.columbia-cascade.org/
(Copy and paste)

There is a link there to the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, or you can go directly to:
http://www.arpc.info/
(Copy and paste)

There is some standard information which may make it easy to answer any questions which you may have before you come to the class: You will find that information below.


_______________________________________________________________________

My name is xx (Jerry The Geek) xx, I'll be the instructor in ARPC's "Introduction to USPSA" course, available on the First Saturday of every month (next class: ).   The class will be on the North Range, probably in Bay 7

Before you show up for the training class on Saturday (at 1pm), you and all other attendees need to read the manual, print and complete the "Final" test, and bring that completed test to the class.  If you have not already received the manual you can download it from its online location at
http://www.columbia-cascade.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2008_CCS_Safety_Manual.pdf

Please print the Final Test.  Answer the questions (write your answers) on the printed page, be prepared to turn in your test (not the whole manual) at the beginning of the class.  You'll also be asked to write your name(s) on a sign-in list, so I know who everyone is and how to spell your names on your certification cards.  You will be rewarded these cards when you have safely completed your first USPSA match, usually at ARPC on the following Saturday (Month, Day, Year).

During the "live fire" instruction you will be expected to demonstrate the basics of safe gun-handling.  This includes familiarity with the firearm you will be using, its controls, and how to respond to malfunctions.  You should be aware of the Three Basic Rules of Firearms Safety:

1. All firearms are assumed to be loaded.
2. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
3. Never point your firearm at anything which you are not prepared to destroy.

You will not be required to memorize these rules, but you will be expected to be aware of them.  They will be emphasized in training, and they are epitomized by the range commands with which you will be familiarized during the class.

The instruction is presented as a 3-hour course. 

The first hour is a review of the test questions, so it's important that everyone has read the manual and completed the test, because we will discuss the questions, your answers, and be responding to follow-up questions and other issues as they occur during our discussion.  (Again, please print the test and write your answers on the test-page.  We will be referring to these answers during the first hour.  Don't forget to PRINT your name on the test.)

Failure to complete the test, or to read the manual, is not cause for any kind of punitive action.  You know best how to apply your available time.  However, the manual does contain information which is important for you to know, and if you have not already been exposed to it we may find it necessary to spend more time discussing these issues.  This will take time away from live-fire training, which is more fun for you and for me, so I do most heartily encourage you to read-and-complete the test. 

The other two hours (and they will take the entire time ... with more time available if you wish to expand the exercises and if the available daylight hours allow) will be spend doing the actual shooting exercises.

During this period you will have actual on-hands training on the following subjects:

• Familiarity with range commands
• Familiarity with the Safety Errors which may lead to a Match Disqualification ("DQ")
• Following the range commands (see the manual)
• Familiarity with Safety and Competition requirements, including penalties
• Familiarity with Stage Procedures, and how your individual score is calculated
  
• Loading, unloading and reloading during the course of fire
• Safe movement with a loaded firearm
• Scoring your performance in competition
• Engaging IPSC Targets (cardboard)
• Engaging IPSC Targets (steel)
• Indexing between targets
• Use of a Bianchi Barricade
• Range Etiquette (more important than you may think)
• Other tips and hints as may be appropriate

The fee is nil; ARPC wants to encourage every prospective participant in USPSA competition.  You don't pay for it, I don't get paid.  We just want you to enjoy the safe use of firearms in a competitive environment.  

The purpose of the course is to make it easier for you to get started in USPSA competition by learning what to expect at a match, and to ensure that you are aware of and familiar with the safety considerations of "running and gunning".    Safety is always the primary consideration, but having an enjoyable day shooting at targets is also important.  I teach the class because I enjoy the sport so much that I think anybody who is able to compete safely should be allowed the opportunity to do so, and because I will someday shoot on the same squad as you -- and I want you to be a safe shooter.  I consider myself to be the best available instructor, and it is to my benefit to see that you receive the best instruction available.

Shooting in USPSA competition is statistically safer then playing high-school football.  We want to keep it that way.

And it's fun!

Here is a list of the minimum 'hardware' requirements for the course; requirements for competing in a match are the same, but an actual match will take about 200 - 300 rounds of ammunition.  As a general rule of thumb, I always bring at least 50% more ammunition than I expect to need to complete the match or the exercise..................  

To take the live-fire course, you will need:

• a handgun, minimum caliber is 9mm
• about 50 rounds of ammunition
• at least 2 magazines .... or speedloaders for revolver shooters ....  depending on variables which we will discuss in the class; you may decide that you will need 4 or 5 (or more) magazines to compete in a match
  
• a holster which fits your handgun, and which covers the trigger (if the holster doesn't cover the trigger we will apply tape over the holster so the trigger is covered --  you will not like that).
  
• at least one magazine carrier; the rule of thumb is that you will need two magazine carriers less than the number of magazines you plan to carry on the stage.  It is MUCH faster to reload from magazine carriers than from the pocket, and time is a factor in your final score.  (Points, less penalties, divided by time.)
• a belt which threads through the loops of your trousers, and is sufficiently rigid that it will easily keep your holster and magazine carriers standing up so they are easy to access
• Eye protection (safety glasses) and ear protection (ear muffs, or soft inserts or custom-made ear inserts)
• a really good attitude about learning to shoot in competition ... SAFELY!

If you have the equipment listed above, bring it.  IF you do not have the equipment, but can get it before the class, do so.  If you find yourself 'short' of the above equipment, let me know before the class day -- we'll see if we can find 'loaner' equipment in our donated stock of holsters, magazine carriers, and magazines.  (If you plan to shoot a revolver, of course, the requirements will be slightly different.  We'll work it out.)

If you have new equipment which you have not previously used (eg: a new holster, or a new pistol), please let me know during the first hour of class.  We'll try to de-bug it for you before you start the live-fire portion of the class.

I'm looking forward to meeting you and however many friends you bring with you.   Please let me ahead of time if you intend to bring other people who will be students at the class.   You are welcome to bring spouse, family members, or friends who may be interested, or just want to watch.  Photography is permitted .. always.  I'll be on the range before 1pm -- the scheduled starting time.  Look for signs to find the correct bay on the North Range; we will probably be on Bay 7.  Remember, eye and ear protection is mandatory any time shooting is going on ... ear protection not mandatory during our first-hour classroom discussion. (Protective classes are ALWAYS REQUIRED while you are on the ARPC range-- anywhere on the range; not just in your bay.  I'll have my glasses on when I get there.  You should, too.)  [The Range Master]  will confirm for me the bay assignment when I arrive at the range.  Look for my car [description included]) ; I'll be at the nearest bay.  Introduce yourself.  The key code at the gate is [9999#].  You do need to press the pound sign to complete the key code.

If you have problems getting to the class on time, you can reach me on my cell phone at (541) xxx-xxxx.

And please feel free to email me directly if you have questions or concerns.

PS:   If any participant is a minor (under 21 years of age, under Oregon law), they should be accompanied by a responsible adult.  If any participant is a juvenile (under 18 years of age), they MUST be accompanied by a responsible parent or guardian.   USPSA is an entirely 'family friendly' sport, but we must be assured that the responsibility for each individual rests upon the participants.  We will not accept responsibility for injuries incurred during training, as unlikely as it may be.

Power Factor

Vortex cannon - PointlessSites.com

The definition of POWER FACTOR in USPSA is bullet weight, times velicity, divided by 1000. Which to say is:

MV/100 = PF

Or, to use an example, for a .45 ACP "Hardball" (military) round of ammunition:

Bullet Weight = 230 grains
Velocity = 800fps (feet per second)

So the "Power Factor" is calculated as follows:

230 grain bullet, and 800 FPS velocity:

PF = 230 x 800 / 1000
PF = 185,000 / 1000
PF = 185

That's the standard load (circa 1960) of the .45acp in a 1911 Browning-style pistol, using "BALL" ammunition.  And it falls well within the "Major Power" designation, according to the 2008 USPSA Rule Book, which requires a minimum of 165 PF to make "Major Power".

However, if you reload it with 200-grain (semi-wadcutter bullets,usually), you get a recalculated Power Factor ... assuming the same velocity:

200 grain bullet, and 800 FPS velocity:

PF = 200 x 800/100
PF = 160,000 /1000
PF = 160

Unfortunately, USPSA requires a PF of 165.00 or greater to achieve "Major Power".   You can see from this example that you need to work your reloads and then calibrate them, to determine whether you are likely (or not!) to be calibrated as Major Power at a Major Match.

I realize it's difficult to accept that one may be competing in a USPSA match with a .45 ACP cartridge, and still be shooting "Minor Power".

However, that's the way it is.
If you are chronographed as "Minor Power, your A-zone hits will still be with 5 points.  But your B/C-zone hits will be worth 3 points, not 4.

And your D-zone hits will be worth 1 point,not 2.

Well, that's just the way it is.

And of course the "Minor Power" floor is PF= 125.00

Consider a 125 grain bullet being pushed through a 9mm.  In order to achieve Minor Power, that bullet must be choreographed at 1000 fps. 

Oh, and in case you were not aware .. if your PF is under 165, you will be deemed to be shooting 'Minor Power'.

If your PF is under 125, then you are deemed to not meet the Minor Power Factor floor ... and you are shooting 'just for fun'.  Unless you DQ during the match, your scores WILL be recorded .. but they will be recorded as ZERO points for every stage in the match.

Sorry, Charley.  Fun, challenging .. but competitive?  No, hardly.

So what do you think about THESE Guys, with a Vortex Cannon?




Right. Shooting just for fun, and entirely 'not competitive'.

DNF

IPSC History:  DNF

"Oh no, not the Dreaded DNF?"

If you have been indoctrinated into The Cult of IPSC for less than ten years, then you are probably unfamiliar with which I choose to call "The Dark Ages of IPSC".

HISTORY OF IPSC:
Initially, the burgeoning sport was called "Combat Pistol", and yes .. it was an unofficial meeting of military and law-enforcement professionals, along with aficionados, hangers on and wanna be's; plus some individuals who just wanted to hone their self-defense handgun skills  OR ... people who thought that there was nothing wrong with playing with guns, but there should be some kind of organization which could codify rules, establish a safe environment,  and establish a competition environment where they could compare their expertise with others with the same (or similar) attitude toward excellence in pistolry.

The movement attracted a lot of people who .... like me .. had a pistol, but really weren't sure how good they were compared to other people.  My introduction in 1983 soon convinced me that I wasn't as good as I thought I was.  Not by a long shot!

The 'movement' was initiated by people who had excellent skill sets.  They were safe, proficient, accurate, fast, experienced, bold shooters.

What they were NOT was .. they were not people who did a really good job of writing a rule book.  (This is a "yuppie" skill ... and not important .. because they all know what they knew, and it was all dreadfully informal.)

Eventually, there were so many yuppies (such as myself) involved in the sport, someone had to take a hard look at the rules and ensure that they were clear, concise, complete, and ... gee .. reasonable?  Even to people who didn't have the experience of real-life gunfights and the exigencies there-of?

Maybe, we aren't talking about training to shoot people.   Maybe we're just learning to play a game!

There was a period when the hard-core gunzines (shooting-related magazines) ran such articles as:

"IPSC will teach you to get killed in a gunfight!"

*(I haven't researched this, but for a long time it was part of the evolving IPSC lore; today .. who cares?    Since 1998 my mission was to teach this one simple lesson:  "It's a GAME, Folks!".  Since then, the Founding Father of IPSC ... Col. Jeff Cooper .. disavowed any association with IPSC because he was totally disgusted with what has become "a sport".   To him, it was and would always remain a means to hone gun-handling skills,  based on Speed Power and Accuracy, which would help "Brave Men Who Protect You While You Sleep" to accomplish their mission.  For the rest of us ... "It's A GAME, Folks!")*

And maybe it will get you killed if you allow yourself to enter into a gun-fight using the skill-set you learned in your "Introduction to USPSA" class.  Or .. maybe it will teach you the gun-handling skills you need to not shoot each other when you're at the range.  Maybe it will provide you with incentive to use your handgun safely.  Maybe it will save your life when the Bad Guys bust into your house and "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Always Just A Minute Away".    I don't know, I don't care, but I do love to shoot in benign competition against people with the same skill sets, and see how I measure up.  It's like playing a video game, except you're using real guns and shooting real bullets.



The problem is; you need Rules of Competition, and they need to be clear, consistent, mutually supportive, rational, reasonable, and justifiable.



The early rule books were NOT well written.  The rules were vague, inconsistent, often contradictory, frequently arbitrary, and usually not supported by an identifiable rationale.

Well, hell.  These guys weren't rule-writers; they were rule-enforcers.  THEY knew what they meant, and they often used a sort of short-hand language which made complete sense to them, and why did they need to conform to the mind-set of a bunch of freaking Hippy-loser Yuppies?

Except, of course, that the sport had been taken over by hippies and yuppies like me, and we really wanted to rules to make sense.

On the other hand, IPSC had gone World-Wide, and nations whose governments didn't even want their citizens to HAVE handguns .... let alone practice with them ...were demanding that the Rule Books include provisions which accommodated the considerations which drove their national political strategies.

First Hippies and Yuppies, and now Political Correctness?  Yuck!

----

Moving on from Politics to Reality ... IPSC and USPSA ... and then both entities separate but equal .. evolved the Rules of Competition to accommodate National Culture.  And Hippies and Yuppies.  And clove to "Combat Pistol" priorities, until Colonel Jeff Cooper threw up his hands in disgust, quit IPSC, and retired to his *(profitable!)* Raven Training.  He washed his hands of us, and we profited.

One signifier of the evolution of Practical Pistol Competition was the DNF Rule.

1983
As originally codified (See Footnote 1), if you didn't complete the course of fire, that meant that you had met the bad guys in a dark alley and you had run away.   That is, you were insufficiently combative.  In competitive terms, they took the very worst score on that stage, magnified it, and you were the loser by 'that much' because you didn't complete the Course of Fire .. the "stage".   That was the competitive thought as of  1983,

This (competitive) situation was designated as DNF ... "Did Not Finish".  That is to say, because of  lost of equipment or ammunition, or the malfunction of your firearm, you were unable to continue the militant confrontation consequently abandoned the Field of Combat.
_____

1992
Later, and still entirely in keeping with the concept of Combat Pistolry (and during a period when we should have entirely acceded to the demands of the Hippies and the Yuppies, like me ...), the authors of the rule books (See Footnote 2) decided that .. gee, if you ran out of ammunition, or your handgun was jammed or otherwise malfunctioned .. you didn't just lose the fight, you were DEAD!  Your score was not just 'the worst' .. it was ZERO!  You were not allowed to abandon the Field of Conflict ... you lost.  Definitively!

That was the the competitive thought of 1992.
____

1995
Still later, in 1995  (See Footnote 3),  if you were 'assigned' a DNF, you score was still zero.  But the explanation was curiously less precise, less  definitive, and less easy to intuitively understand the reasoning behind the penalty .... even though you (we) were already conditioned to accept that we had been engaged in a gunfight and were rendered a functional non-combatant in what we already understood to be a 'combat' situation.

My reading on this is that the rule book update was sloppily applied;  the authors didn't know what they were doing, or why they were doing it, but they knew the rules and they were determined to proffer that because ...
... because we were all so eager to continue The Sport, we didn't much care what the rules were, we just wanted to be able to go shooting on the occasional Saturday,  No .. we wanted to be ALLOWED to go shooting.  We were not very critical .. until it was WE who were DNF'd, and eventually we realized that we didn't really understand the rationale behind the (entirely arbitrary) judgement.

Then ... we became active members, and we demanded a voice.  We wanted to know WHY this competition was still being processed as COMBAT.

"It's a GAME, Folks!"

2000 ... 

"The Toilet Paper Ruleboook", and The End of Combat Shooting

In a surprising and revelatory move, IPSC/USPSA decided suddenly in 2000 to abandon (at least partially) rules which pertained to Combat Shooting ... and finally recognize that this was COMPETITION and not COMBAT!

Penalties would hereafter pertain to competition.  We're not shooting at "people". dammit!  We're not even shooting at "targets shaped like people"!   We're just shooting at cardboard targets, and steel targets, and we have CLEARLY defined that all the rules of competition are based on competitive concepts.

Did your pistol go south for the winter?  Did you fail to bring enough ammunition to engage all targets?    Okay.    You didn't engage some targets?  We have rules to cover that ... Failure to Engage.  No problem.

The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) encourage that dramatic change of concept in 2003 by issuing a 'provisional' Rule Book Version which was so under-the-covers that it didn't even have a "heavy-duty-cover-in-color" .. instead, the cover was of the same flimsy coarse-fiber paper as its contents.  (See Footnote 4).

Immediately (and appropriately) designated "The Toilet Paper Rule Book",  the USPSA membership responded with very few criticisms.  What we saw would tentatively legitimize a number of "common sense" changes to the rules; the most significant changes were that all references, no matter how inconsequential, to "Combat Pistol", had been changed, or deleted.

Specifically, the DNF rule and any allusions to the "You stopped fighting; you died" .. were gone.

Instead, if a competitor was unable to complete the course of fire, he was merely penalized " ... all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties...".

This changed the penalty structure from a dramatic "zero" on the stage .. or worse .. to a simple administrative ruling which gave credit to scoring which had already been achieved.  Or, to put it in context ...  you stopped competing, but you  may have stopped because of reasons which WE (USPSA) won't attempt to interpret in terms of Combat.  And you're not fighting ... you're just competing!

This 'temporary' (or "Provisional') rule book change was so well received  .. which is to say, received with so little rancor from even the most aggressive members of USPSA .. that it was later (see Footnote 5) reitterated with only minor revisions in 2001 as USPSA R%ull Book, 14th Edition ("The Red Book").

From this point on, USPSA (and by extension, IPSC) became a 'competition', not 'Combat Pistolry'.
___________________________________________________

Earlier, in 1997, IPSC (via IPSC GREECE) applied to the International Olympics Committee (IOC) for establishment as a "Demonstration sport" to subsequent Olympics competition.  The IOC rejected it with a great deal of judgmental prejudice, saying in part that they would not now, nor would they every accept as part of the Olympics a sport which "... is not a sport, but merely a hobby".

(It's a disappointment that this data is primarily available from an anti-gun website;  should we as IPSC members not be more willing to archive our disappointments as well as our successes?)

The road to legitimacy has been long, arduous, and fraught with failures.  We are no longer a COMBAT TRAINING activity, and that is good.  Well, at least my my personal point of view.  We are summarily rejected from legitimacy by no less than the IOC.  I think the suggestion was presented too soon for the IOC to see that our character has changed, and no one is more bitter about the ill-timed presentation than am I.

We are castigated for our COMBAT roots, with no recognition that we have changed.  We are percieved as aggressors, rather than mere competitors.  There are other shooting sports in the Olympics; in fact, most of the sports epitomized in the Olympics are based upon combat (Javelin?  Biathalon?  Even running .. remember that Marathon was in celebration of a Military Victory!)


So, we are not allowed to celebrate our advancement before the world.

But still .. we no longer need to contend with the Dreaded DNF.  And in our own small insulated world, that is a major triumph.

We don't lose; we don't die.  We are just  "  penalized " ... all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties...".

I can live with that.

For me, it's good enough.
__________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES:
__________________________________________________________

Footnote 1:
Rule Book: "The International Shooting Confederation and The United States Region of IPSC"
1st Edition; May, 1983
"The Original Rule Book"
 (Page 18)

2.8  Malfunctions - in the event of a malfunction, the normal procedure will be for the shooter to rectify the situation, keeping the muzzle pointing down range, and carry on with the event.  If he is unable to do so, he will stand fast, lower the weapon to waist height and lock onto the target.  He will then reaise his free hand to signal the RO/CRO to stop the clock, and proceed to examine the weapon.  In the event that a pistol cannot be unloaded due to a broken or failed mechanism, the contest directore must be informed and he will take such action as he thinks best and safest. In no case shall a contestant leave the firing line in the possession of a loaded pistol.

2.8.1 When, due to breakdown or loss of personal equipment or injury, a competitor is unable to complete or wishes to terminate a course of fire, he will raise his free hand and call "TIME".

The competitor's target score will stand as shot minus applicable penalties and he will be awarded an elapsed time equal to the slowest time recorded on that course plus five seconds.

The penalty may also be stated in the course of fire for not completing a stage or course.

(Emphasis in the original)
__________________________________________

Footnote 2:
Practical Shooting Handbook
6th Edition April 1992  (USPSA) 
"The Yellow Book"

This book contains:

The USPSA Member's Handbook'USPSA Pistol Regulations

The most current I.P.S.C Rules 

Combined I.P.S.C Rifle & Shotgun Rules

Copyright 1992 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.

Sedro Woolley, Wa 98284

 11:09 DID NOT FINISH (DNF) - When a competitor is unable to complete a course of fire for whatever reason, other than range equipment failure, his score will be recorded as zero for that stage.  (See 8.06, 8.08)  (Page 54-55)

8.06 MALFUNCTIONS - In the event of a malfunction, the normal procedure will be for the competitor to rectify the situation, always keeping the muzzle pointing downrange, and carry on with the stage.  If he is unable to do so, he will stand fast, lower the handgun safely pointed down range and signal by raising his free hand.  The Range Officer will stop the clock and proceed to examine the handgun.  See 11.09     (page 45)  

8.08 UNABLE TO FINISH COURSE - When, due to a breakdown or loss of personal equipment or injury, a competitor is unable to complete a course or wishes to terminate the course of fire, he will raise his free hand and call TIME.  See 11.09     (page 45)

_____________________________________

Footnote 3:
Practical Shooting Handbook
7th Edition, 1995
"The Blue Book"

Including:

USPSA Member's Handbook

7th Edition USPSA Rules

12the Edition IPSC Rules

11th Edition USPSA Rifle &

Shotgun Rules

Copyright 1995 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.

Sedro Woolley WA 98284

(Note 1:  This was the rule-book currently available when I took my original Range Officer Certification course in 1997.  At that time, "revisions" to previous rule-book versions were marked by the note REV in the margin;  however, a new version had been approved at that date even though it had not yet been published.  During the class, the NROI [National Range Officer Institute] instructor identified the changes and directed us to cross out deleted text, and write in new or amended text.  Deleted text is identified like this; added/amended text is identified like this.)

(Note 2: At this time, early attempts to designate rules which were unique to USPSA, but not part of the IPSC rules, were designated as US **.** rule number.   The IPSC rules were cited first in the rule book; then the US rule version was cited.

11.00 PROCEDURAL ERROR - A procedural error is defined as failure to comply with the stated procedure as specified in the stage and/or match information.  The penalty will be assed as minus ten points (twice the value of a single maximum scoring hit) per occurrence.


REV: US 11.00 PROCEDURAL ERRORS - Procedural errors apply to violations of stated procedures which are not otherwise covered by other specific rules.  Do not apply two different penalties for the same offense ......
        [Inapplicable text omitted in this footnote]
Failure to engage (shoot at) a target specified in the stage description is a procedural error.  Failure to engage will always result in one procedural penalty regardless of the number of required hits on the target.  Failure to engage will not result in a DNF unless the failure is due to the competitors equipment failure, loss of ammo, etc.  (See rules 8.08 and 11.09)  Failure to successfully engage a stop target results in a DNF.  (page 52)

 REV 8.08 - UNABLE TO FINISH COURSE - When, due to a breakdown or loss of personal equipment or injury, a competitor is unable to complete a course and wishes to terminate the course of fire, he may raise his free hand.  His score will be recorded as zero for that stage.  (page 42)

'(Note 1:  This was the rule-book currently available when I took my original Range Officer Certification course in 1997.  At _____________________________________

Footnote 4:
USPSA RULE Book
14th Edition, 2000
"The Toilet Paper Book"  
(Page 22)
5.7.3  

In the event that a firearms malfunction cannot be corrected by the competitor, the competitor  shall point the firearm safely downrange and advise the Range Officer.  The Range Officer shall terminate the course of fire in the normal manner.  The course of fire shall be scored normally including all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties.

Copyright 2000 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.

Sedro Woolley WA 98284

_____________________________________

Footnote 5:
USPSA Rule Book
14th Edition,2001
("The Red Book") 
(Page 46)
5.7.3 

In the event that a firearms malfunction cannot be corrected by the competitor, the competitor  shall point the firearm safely downrange and advise the Range Officer.  The Range Officer shall terminate the course of fire in the normal manner.  The course of fire shall be scored normally including all appropriate miss and failure to shoot at penalties.

Copyright 2001 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.

Sedro Woolley WA 98284

USPSA Rule Changes

USPSA Rule Changes 0301101.pdf (application/pdf Object)

The Range Lawyers are Alive and Well, and ... well ... confusing.

The latest Columbia Cascade Newsletter (H/T "The Hobo Brasser") introduces New Rules from USPSA.


I suspect you will find them somewhat confusing. I know I did. Perhaps it would be best if we attribute the confusion to Friday Night Follies ("Yippee! It's The Weekend!")

Still, there are a few rules which are not intrinsically obvious to the casual observer. Most of them are relevant only to those who compete in Production Class, but some of them may affect us all.

Here are a selected few, and my first-impressions. I'm pretty sure I don't understand them, so if anyone has a better (or more authoritative) interpretation, I do, as always, invite corrections.

After all, I'm not an authority and this is not something that I had prior or background knowledge of the changes/improvements or the reasons why they were enacted.

And I'm assuming that these rule changes are definitive, official, and immediately applicable. This may not be the case.

Oh, and my comments only apply to the "Handgun Rules"; not being a 'multi-gun' competitor, I would not dare to comment on "Multi-Gun Rules".

...

1.2.2.3 “Speed Shoot”-Courses of fire consisting of one continuous string of fire not exceeding 16 rounds shot on one or more arrays of multiple targets from a single location or view. No more than 8 rounds may be required without a mandatory reload and no more than one mandatory reload may be required in the course of fire. Stage may be scored either Comstock or Virginia Count. See Rule 9.2.3.2.

Level II or higher matches are allowed no more than one of these courses of fire per every five stages. The total points available in these courses of fire shall not exceed 20% of the total points available in any match. Weak /Strong hand may be stipulated after the reload is complete.

Second Paragraph does not apply to "Club Matches" (Level I).

Do you not understand where the "Speed Shoot" designation applies? Neither do I.

In this, as with all succeeding rule discussions, it would probably be handy to have your current USPSA Rule Book handy.

(I don't intend to fully parse these rules. The purpose is only to make you aware that they are 'new', and to familiarize you with them in the general sense. I hope that this will lead to a fuller discussion.)

4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit, are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1). All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:
1. That a minimum of 50% of the calibration zone be available at some point in the COF.
2. That the calibration will be done from a point on the COF where the calibration zone is available, closest to where the contested shot was fired.

The salient point in this rule is, I believe, that historically it has been permissible (especially in Club Matches ... see above) to score a 'hit' on a plate when the plate has fallen because of a hit which actually struck the supporting structure. After this rule is enacted, if a plate falls because the shot hit the thing-a-ma-bob that holds the plate off the ground, it's considered a REF ("Range Equipment Failure") and results in a mandatory reshoot. Which may grow tiresome, and expensive in terms of ammunition expended to complete a single stage.

This puts the burden on the stage construction crew to ensure that it's not possible (or at least, not easy) to hit the platform rather than the plate.

Three comments:

1. This is only determined if the RO cannot see the mark of a bullet on the plate, which directly implies that each plate MUST be re-painted between shooters;
2. The stage must be set up so that it is at least difficult, preferably impossible, to hit the support structure. Again, this puts the burden on the host club to insure that only the steel target is visible to the shooter.
3. This is obviously intended to apply mainly to plates; however, it is possible to hit the base of a Pepper Popper and shake it sufficiently that the popper falls. Again, the steel target MUST be painted between shooters to insure that this rule can be applied. If the RO cannot definitively determine that the target has not been struck by the bullet, the shooter must reshoot the stage. There is no other option available to the Range Officer.

5.2.4 During the course of fire after the start signal, unless stipulated otherwise in the stage procedure, spare ammunition, magazines and/or speed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached to the competitor’s belt and specifically designed for that purpose.
Unless specifically prohibited in the Written Stage Briefing, a competitor may also carry additional magazines or speed loading devices in apparel pocket(s) and retrieve and use them without penalty, providing that the location of the apparel pocket does not violate the requirements of Appendix D, Item 12 (subject to the provisions of Rule 6.2.5.1)

Yes, this is essentially a re-iteration of an old rule which requires the shooter to use the magazines in his/her "mag-carriers" before dipping into the pocket to get the 'back-up' magazines.

I'm not sure how or whether this is an improvement on existing rules, but it is clear that the intention is that the shooter uses ammunition carried on the belt before using ammunition carried in the pocket.

Pfaugh!

Sorry, I can't say this in a kinder, more gentle way: This is a stupid rule.

Not "stupid" because it's not a 'good idea', but "stupid" because it is unenforceable.

There is no penalty associated with this rule. If there is no penalty, there is no way to enforce the rule.

Is it possible to assign a Procedural Penalty for failure to follow this rule? I don't know why. Procedural Rules are enforceable only if the mandate to reload only from the belt ammunition-carrier is part of the written stage procedure. If it is written in the stage procedure, it doesn't need to be in the rule book.

Have I missed something here? I hope someone can tell me how, as a Range Officer, I can enforce this rule.

Don't bullshit me here, Boys.

9.1.3 Prematurely Patched Targets - If a target is prematurely patched or taped, which prevents a Range Official from determining the actual score, the Range Officer must order the competitor to reshoot the course of fire. However, if following the scoring of a target by any assigned Range Officer, the target is patched or taped by anyone other than a Range Officer, the score will stand as called regardless of the competitor’s opportunity to see the target in question and the competitor will not be permitted to appeal the score as called.

This is an odd one.

It sees to address a rare situation where the competitor doesn't follow the RO around during scoring of his targets, and challenges the score after the target is taped.

Okay, so we now that it's the competitor's responsibility to witness and accept the scoring of each target. Is this something new? No, clearly not.

As far as I can tell, it only circumvents the competitors ability to challenge the scoring of an individual target AFTER it has been scored by the Range Officer, and AFTER the target has been taped by the follow-up tape-apes.

Hmmmm. I suppose it's worth the effort to make a rule to prevent a competitor from challenging a call AFTER the target has been scored and taped. And it does reinforce the encouragement of the competitor to follow the Range Officer as he/she scores the targets.

Frankly, I have to fall back on the "Old School" injunction: "The Competitor Will Witness The Scoring Of Each Individual Target".

In other words: "If you snooze, you lose".

Okay, I can live with that. It just seems a shame that the situation is so common that it requires a rule to justify it.

9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.4).
See Appendix B2 or B3 for the percent of target to be presented.

I don't see anything new here, except for the last sentence. Again, I'm not comparing it to the current rules, which (if I recall correctly) require that all of the Upper A-zone or at least 50% of the 'main' A-zone of a target be available to hit for score.

But it seems as if at least the last part of the first sentence is missing here. It's not intuitively obvious why this rule is needed. Is it just me? What are the conditions under which "failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties" will be applied?

Perhaps my copy of the summary is defective. Or perhaps I am defective.

---

The rules about Arbitration may be significant, but I don't see anything that applies to most shooting situations. Ho-hum.

---

Appendix A3 Facing Uprange—Face and feet pointing straight uprange with shoulders parallel to the backstop.

Now, this is new.

I cannot count the number of times when the shooter is enjoined to face uprange, and he ends up with his body skewed to one side or another while his face is turned 'uprange'.

This is a welcome addition, or should I say "clarification", and I look forward to correcting the wayward competitor who thinks he has gained some advantage to twisting his body into a pretzel shape. It's silly to do so, but now we have a rule which not only supports the supposed "right way" to stand but also allows Range Officers to correct the competitor.

Still, it's a small, almost insignificant rule change because there is not that much advantage to be gained by assuming the Pretzel Position.

Add to Appendix D4 under special conditions: Anyone signing up for Production is declaring minor regardless if the ammunition makes major at the chronograph. Should they be moved to another division, they will shoot minor for the entire match or sub-minor should their ammo fail to meet the minimum.

Okay, this is another minor point which is apparently intended to enforce 'other rules'. I have no problem with this rule, other than to regret that it is necessary to enact it to further discourage violation of 'other rules'.

-------------------------

There are a plethora of other rules in this ... 'announcement' ... and you should go read the whole thing to determine your own interpretation of whether or not it applies to your own special situation.

Generally speaking, these are all 'special rules'. The most commonly will not affect folks who are competing for the fun of it.

Which is just another way of saying that these rules are intended only to discourage "gamers".

[sigh]

In my humble opinion, it takes some of the fun out of the competition. When you can't "game" a stage, competition loses some of its flavor.

Fort Apache - ARPC 9/9

The Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC) club match on September 12, 2009, was full of surprises. Some of them good some of them startling. (Match Results available here.)

One of the 'good' surprises was the extent to which the range had been improved during the past six months. Due to the purchase of more land on the North end of the range, there is now room for competitors to park 'nose in' rather than the parallel parking which was mandatory before this summer. Also, the USPSA match this month was staged completely on the East side of the North Range, which allowed parking in a large field. And some kind soul even cut stair-steps in the middle of the 5-bay segment, which allowed competitors to choose to ascend to the raised level of the new bays without necessarily walking all the way to either access ramp.

Our squad started on Stage 5 ("Fort Apache"), a Comstock field-course which required the competitor to not only start with an unloaded pistol on one of two barrels, and all reloads to be pre-staged on the barrels ... but also mandated engaging most targets through cruciform ports which were 2" wide on each form of the cross-shaped port.

This caused some problems, which were not immediately obvious.

Most of the early shooters recognized that rounds which passed through the "impenetrable" vision barrier counted as misses. But in the actual event, it was virtually impossible to perceive that the pistol was not aligned with the cruciform port. As a result, targets were often engaged with the sight-line through the open port, but the muzzle of the pistol was significantly aligned below the cross-arm of the port.

I was the Range Officer for the first several shooters on my squad, so I was unable to take pictures of the ports as they were degraded by 'bad hits'.

The first shooter put six or seven shots through the vision barrier.

The second shooter also put several shots thru the vision barrier, as did the next 2 or three shooters.
We taped the holes between shooters, but we discovered that many of the guns ... especially Open-class guns with their Compensators ... tended to blow away the tape concealing earlier bullet holes.

Even if the pistols were correctly aligned through the port, the side-blast usually blew the tape off the earlier bullet holes.

Eventually, it became a challenge to the memory of the Range Officer whether he could remember which bullet holes were new, and which had been the result of impact of previous shooters.

Then the Hobo Brasser shot the stage and was penalized for "impenetrable hits". He (rightly) protested the penalties, because he had fired more than the minimum number of rounds necessary to legally engage all the targets. After some discussion, I ruled that he was correct and he was required to reshoot the stage because "it is impossible to score the state".

Finally, someone with his compensated pistol blew away the lower 2" of the left arm of a crucifrm porthole. We attempted to reconstruct the original profile of the port by placing tape over the gigantic hole, but the next shooter blasted that tape away with his second shot. Who could determine where the shot went when the structure of the port was essentially destroyed?

At this point, I turned to the stage designer (for the second time) and declared that "this stage is unacceptable, because it is impossible to score accurately and consistently."

Since only 4 competitors had shot the stage, it was possible to reshoot these shooters ... after the ports were re-cut so that a diamond-shape (about 8" on a side) replaced the cruciform port.



As it happens, a further modification was found to be advisable; because compensators tend to degrade shooting ports, tin-foil was added to the upper two edges of the ports, to prevent a dramatic change to the configuration of the ports.

Ultimately, including the time needed to effect the stage modifications and to allow the first four competitors to reshoot the stage, it took us (a squad of only 9 people) more than an hour to complete the stage. On this stage, the average time was about 30 seconds; which illustrates the reason why a stage which should have taken less than a half-hour to complete actually required twice the time.

Lessons learned:

When designing or constructing a stage, it's important to consider how the props can deteriorate during the normal usage of the stage. Ports which excessively restrict the passage of bullets which miss the legal port may be subject to protest by shooters who realize that it is exceedingly difficult to consistently and fairly determine which shots were un-legally aimed at legal targets through a port which is subject to deconstruction.

Finally, it is well to realize that a shot through a needlessly constrictive port, and which knocks down a steel target even though the round passes though a vision barrier, is immediate cause for a re-shoot because of Range Equipment Failure.


UPDATE: 14-SEP-2009
Response to comment:
"So. Whose bright idea was it to make ports needlessly constricted in the first place? "

Oh dear, this is my fault because I made the stage sound too horrible for words. In the event, it was a good stage. It's just that one element was added to test the shooters' ability to shoot through a very restricted port, and the experiment failed.

This was a club match, which means it had no effect of shooter rankings. There was no prize table, no rewards other than "bragging rights", and historically this venue has served to try out new twists on the run-of-the-mill stage designs such as "Underwater Submarine", which the commenter mentioned.

The stage designer wanted to try out a new twist, and it didn't ... quite ... work. Nothing more or less than that was intended, and it's notable that the stage designer took the time to watch the first squad shoot the stage. When it was obvious that the design wasn't feasible, he modified the stage props so that it worked, and we only had to reshoot four competitors to prove that the new stage construction worked.

Let me put this in some perspective.

I am very critical of stage designs, and although I was leery of the restricted ports I made no protest until a couple of shooters had tested it and we found it to be unusable. When it was ultimately proven to be unusable, the problem was fixed and we completed the stage before the next squad caught up with us.

Perhaps I made it sound more egregious than it deserved, but over-all the stage design was good. It allowed us to wring out the new design element, and we all learned from it.

Thats all it amounted to, and if I made it sound as if there was a lack of responsibility involved, that was my fault. I do tend to dramatize events, for readability, and in this situation I should have been more responsible in the original version of this article.

Can You Count?

Despite my best intentions to edit and post all 19 of the videos I filmed at last weekend's match at Dundee, I have only been able to compile two of them in one video.

"Can You Count?" (CM 06-03 USPSA Classifier) is a 20-round stage which challenges the participant to draw, shoot and reload quickly. It also requires that the shooter can break the habit of shooting each target only two times -- sometimes, this is the more difficult challenge, because you know we get into a rut.

It's not very exciting to watch this stage, until someone screws it up. That's the signal for your friends to tease you mercilessly ... if they have already shot the stage successfully.

But when you don't perform to your own expectations, and it's because your gun isn't running right, jocularity is not the most welcome response from the Peanut Gallery. (youtube link here)


One thing about this classifier: the stage procedures are flawed.

It's not fatally flawed, it just doesn't make it clear about the penalties for failing to follow the written procedure.

Here's the situation we encountered (not involving the two gentlemen shown in the video).
The course procedures read:

On signal, from Box A only:
String 1: Engage T1 with five rounds only. Perform a
mandatory reload and engage T2 with five rounds
only.
String 2: Engage T3 with five rounds only. Perform a
mandatory reload and engage T4 with five rounds
only.
Targets within a string may be engaged in any
order without penalty

One of the squad members got a couple of shots into T2 before he remembered that he was suppose to reload. So he reloaded, and completed the rest of the stage without error.

I was keeping score, and the Range Officer asked me what the penalty should be.

"One procedural, for not reloading when he was suppose to" I replied.

Some of the folks in the squad took issue with that call. I reminded them that there was no advantage gained, so only one procedural penalty ... for not strictly abiding by the written stage procedure ... was justifiable.

In return, they quoted the sub-text in the stage procedures:

Failure to perform reload is per-shotfired [sic]
penalty.

"Yes", I agreed, "... there is a significant advantage gained if NO reload occurs, especially in a stage with a total elapsed time of something like 10 seconds. But the shooter DID reload. He just didn't reload when he should have. He should only be penalized for not strictly following the stage procedure. The per-shot penalty is invoked ONLY if he didn't reload -- which he did."

However, I suggested that they (the dissenting squad members) take the question to the Match Director. In the absence of a Range Master, in a club match the M.D. gets to make these difficult decisions.

They returned from their discussion with the M.D. with the word that it was officially ruled that "per-shot" penalties would be applied.

I didn't agree, and I counseled the 'offending' competitor that he had the right to request arbitration. I said that I would speak on his behalf. He didn't think it was that big a deal, and quietly accepted the additional penalty points.

I don't know if this issue has been addressed by John Amidon, or if a 'ruling' has been published in this kind of situation.

But it kind of ticks me off, you know? I have the strong suspicion that clubs interpret the rules differently.

Not that it makes a big difference; in this kind of quick-and-dirty stage, if you get even one penalty point it pretty much takes you out of the running for a good stage score.

Still, it was a relatively new shooter, and I don't like it when the "Wheels of Justice" grind so exceedingly fine.

Have any of you bumped up against this stage, this vaguely worded procedure?

I would be interested in any comments which discuss the subject. Obviously, I think I'm right. It doesn't make any difference at all to the match, at this late date. But I am ... dissappointed ... at what I perceive to be an injustice.

This is what I do to relax. The competition shooting, I mean. I don't like to argue about the rules, so it makes me turn surly when the rules seem unfairly applied.

Okay, so I do enjoy a lively debate.

Anybody out there think that the "Per-Shot Penalty" should have been applied here?

USPSA 2008 Rule 8.3.7.3 - "Holster"

Browsing through the Brian Enos forum, I found an interesting "Rules" discussion which explored the "end of COF" question. Specifically, is it legal to bag your pistol rather than to return it to your holster?

The consensus that I found seems to be that the competitor is required to holster, but as a courtesy the RO may allow the pistol to be returned to a "bag" instead.

Here's the text of the rule in the 2008 rule book:

8.3.7.3 If the gun proves to be clear, the competitor must holster his handgun.

In club matches, such courtesy seems to be taken for granted. The pace is slow, the level of "Gentlemen's Agreements" is high, and range clearing time is usually improved by providing such courtesies. In fact, to insist that the handgun be holstered rather than bagged (returned to a non-holster carrying article) might lead to a heated discussion of the proprieties, slowing down the match and generating bad feelings.

However, at Level II and higher matches, it is a common understanding that competitors come to the line ready to shoot, which includes the pistol in the holster, and leaves with the pistol returned to the holster. Before the competitor comes to the line he is expected to remove his pistol from the bag and holster it at a safety table. This presumably speeds up the time spent on the stage for each competitor, and reduces the presumptuous administrative burden on the RO. (The RO would need to pass off the bag to the scorekeeper, to keep this hands free, and there is often a time lag while the RO reminds the scorekeeper that the bag must be passed to the RO, and then to the competitor, to complete the stage.)

I note that it is most often the Open Division shooters who bag guns; Limited competitors may bag between stages, but Production and Limited 10 / Singlestack competitors more often do not. I suspect that distribution of bagging/non-bagging practices is influenced by the weight of the handgun and the retention reliability of the holster.

For example, when I shoot an Open gun from my USA holster, I will always bag between stages. The pistol is heavy, the skeletal USA holster always makes me wonder whether the lock-knob is properly locked for retention, and I might knock the pistol out of the holster by the natural swing of my arms as I walk.

On the other extreme, a small polymer pistol (Production Division) in a Forbus holster doesn't weigh much, doesn't significantly stick out from the hip, and may be carried all day without much discomfort.

There are some considerations which are implied in the two approaches:

Bagging permitted:
This is usually assumed at club matches, if for no other reason than that many smaller 'local' clubs don't always have safety tables available on every bay. In order to move the handgun from the bag to the holster, it may be necessary for each competitor to walk a significant distance from the stage bay to the safety table. That time requirement may require some stage time if a competitor fails to leave enough time before his turn to shoot, to prepare for the next stage. The Range Officers are usually members of the squad.

Holster Required:
In a large match (Level II and above) then number of competitors per squad will probably be higher than at a club match. The pressure to reduce stage-clearing time per each competitor is greater; seconds per competitor do count when there are several hundred competitors who need to shoot a dozen or more stages in a one-and-a-half or two day match. The RO staff are dedicated, assigned people who are not competing during the match. (Typically Staff is allowed to shoot the match the day before the start of the match, and bagging standards may be relaxed because, in the RO match, the RO staff are often members of the squad.) Because the labor burden is so heavy for the individual staff member, any procedure which limits the number of extra duties for the staff is encouraged; officiating at a major match is usually physically exhausting, and the standards of performance are very high.

The problem with the difference in priorities between a Club Match and a Major Match is that those who almost always compete only in Club Matches may have some ingrained assumptions. Here, the important assumption is that the 'courtesy' of allowing the competitor to come to the line with a bagged handgun is a common right, even if the rules don't actually support it.

When a club shooter competes at a Major Match, he may not realize that the rules are changed. After all, we shoot with the same rules at every match. The Club Shooter has not been trained to the higher standard of enforcement.

Why are we even talking about this?
In the actual events, Club Shooters are often confused by the different etiquette which is required at Major Matches. This is not only frustrating, but may reduce their level of satisfaction of the Major Match experience.

Even experienced shooters may forget that the level of readiness is increased at a Major Match.

It may be worth the effort to ascertain before the match what the expectations are; usually, a Major Match will provide a handbook for competitors which includes these expectations. Look for phrases such as "Competitors will come to the line ready to shoot", indicating that your handgun will be in the holster, you will have your magazines loaded and placed in magazine carriers, and you will have both eye and ear protection in place, or ready to wear.

Any competitor who is not ready to shoot will be sent back and the next competitor in the squad will be called to the line while the others prepare their gear according to the requirements.

It isn't personal, it isn't a case of the Range Officers being "Range Nazis". The competitors are only being required to abide by the rules of the game, in the strictest sense, for the sake of getting through the match according to what is probably a very tight match schedule.

If you didn't know that before, you know it now.